[FFmpeg-devel] [patch] allow build env to force sdl-config path via $SDL_CONFIG

Michael Niedermayer michaelni
Sat Feb 16 02:31:49 CET 2008


On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 07:55:37PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 7:27 PM, M?ns Rullg?rd <mans at mansr.com> wrote:
> > "Mike Frysinger" <vapier.adi at gmail.com> writes:
> >  > On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 4:33 PM, M?ns Rullg?rd <mans at mansr.com> wrote:
> >  >> "Mike Frysinger" <vapier.adi at gmail.com> writes:
> >  >>  > On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 6:39 PM, Diego Biurrun <diego at biurrun.de> wrote:
> >  >>  >> On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 10:42:43PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >  >>  >>  > as is standard with pretty much all autotool-based build systems which
> >  >>  >>  > search for the sdl-config script, this patch allows people to force
> >  >>  >>  > the full path to sdl-config via the SDL_CONFIG env var.  so now you
> >  >>  >>  > can do:
> >  >>  >>  > SDL_CONFIG=/some/crazy/stupid/place/sdl-config ./configure
> >  >>  >>  > and ffmpeg will find the crazy stupid sdl
> >  >>  >>  >
> >  >>  >>  > --- configure (revision 11931)
> >  >>  >>  > +++ configure (working copy)
> >  >>  >>  > @@ -1693,7 +1693,7 @@ check_foo_config freetype2 freetype ft2b
> >  >>  >>  >
> >  >>  >>  >  disable sdl_too_old
> >  >>  >>  >  disable sdl
> >  >>  >>  > -SDL_CONFIG="${cross_prefix}sdl-config"
> >  >>  >>  > +SDL_CONFIG="${SDL_CONFIG-${cross_prefix}sdl-config}"
> >  >>  >>                            ^
> >  >>  >>  This '-' looks wrong.
> >  >>  >>
> >  >>  >>  Also, why can't you simply use PATH?
> >  >>  >
> >  >>  > the location of the sdl-config wrapper may contain binaries that
> >  >>  > cannot be executed on the host.  i dont see why there's any objection
> >  >>  > to the change considering this behavior is perfectly standard for
> >  >>  > every autotool based package out there that looks for sdl-config.
> >  >>  >
> >  >>  > if you wanted to decrapify the ffmpeg configure script, you'd start
> >  >>  > using pkg-config which is much easier to control in a cross-compiling
> >  >>  > environment.  then people would only have to set one variable
> >  >>  > (PKG_CONFIG) or create one wrapper script (${cross_prefix}pkg-config).
> >  >>
> >  >>  If you want a nice reception around here, you'd start by not calling
> >  >>  the configure script crap.
> >  >
> >  > it is crap.  any large package that hand rolls their own build system
> >  > and forces people to learn their own special conventions that deviate
> >  > from every other package out there is crap.  perhaps you could
> >  > illustrate in what ways the current situation doesnt suck ?  i'm
> >  > really not interested in sugar coating reality so as to make people
> >  > feel better about the situation -- they should feel bad.
> >
> >  Your attitude is the only thing that's crap here.  Well, that and
> >  autoconf.
> 
> inability to properly use autotools is what leads to homegrown build
> systems 

No you got it wrong, autotools being a tremendously bloated and missdesigned
joke. Besides that, it is a security risk due to uncheckable huge configure
files.
People as you already mentioned also arent good at using autotools, that
means more bugs than there would be with "homegrown" systems. It doesnt
even matter tht much if autotools is bad or people are bad at using it
the result is the same ...


> that doesnt scale at all.

Well, any computer ive tried the ffmpeg or mplayer configure scripts on
they simply worked. With autoconf based projects spending hours to get
them to compile on a common linux x86 system is quite common ...


>  i'm not making any claims that
> autotools is easy to use or understand, or that many people out there
> are good with it.  

Thats nice from you.


> just that the alternatives are worse.

Well do you have some argument, a specific usecase which works better, 
anything?
Or do you just want to entertain us? If the so, then you seem successfull,
please continue!


[...]
> >  Barging in like this, shouting that everything is crap, you'll only
> >  make enemies.  FFmpeg developers have a reputation for being hostile
> >  to people far less repugnant than you.
> 
> the fact that the configure script is crap is pretty self evident by
> simply reading it. 

ROTFL, you are good, very funny!
Though you could try an occasional technical argument.

Here is an example: The fact that auto* is crap is also pretty self evident
by simply reading the output. Just try it, just take occasional pauses, maybe
once per month.


> it resolves problems that existing build systems
> have already addressed.

Is this another way of saying both systems work?


> it breaks in configurations that differ from
> whoever wrote it.  it simply doesnt scale.

Autoconf scales better, yes, it even breaks in the configuration from the
one who wrote it.


> 
> i dont know why you're taking things personally.  i never said you
> were stupid or that you're a bad person, nor anything about you at all
> (i dont even know who you are). 

Mans is the guy with a short temper, a shotgun, and a raised floor in his
server room.


> if i had the time, i'd assist in
> throwing it all out for something that does scale, but sadly i dont.

> i only have time to extend it slightly when it breaks for me.

Then you must have very little time indeed.

[...]
-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

I know you won't believe me, but the highest form of Human Excellence is
to question oneself and others. -- Socrates
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20080216/6f2f05d1/attachment.pgp>



More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list